Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

No. If I tell my son that if he eats his dinner he can have ice cream then it is still a bribe, even if it is not against the rules.

So I looked up what a bribe actually is :

"1. money or any other valuable consideration given or promised with a view to corrupting the behavior of a person, especially in that person's performance as an athlete, public official, etc."

This is what I meant by paying somebody to do something "against the rules" - you're paying them to be corrupt.

Since nothing has been corrupted in the case of the DUP, this definition does not apply.

"2. anything given or serving to persuade or induce"

Now under that definition it is a bribe. But then under that definition your employer bribes you to work for him. You bribe stores to give you goods. The definition is so wide that it covers virtually every form of exchange in existence.

By this definition I'd be willing to accept that May bribed the DUP. And my response is "so what? There's nothing wrong with bribery."

Quote:

The DUP are not offering their skills for a certain fee.

No, they are offering their support in return for political concessions. That's what politicians do. Offering their support is not corruption - their support is theirs to give to whomever they choose, and there is no law, rule or custom saying they can't.

Quote:

They are trading political capital for public money. I would say that paying them the money is an unprincipled bribe.

And I would say that you are rather obviously wrong.

__________________Promise of diamonds in eyes of coal
She carries beauty in her soul

By this definition I'd be willing to accept that May bribed the DUP. And my response is "so what? There's nothing wrong with bribery."

No, they are offering their support in return for political concessions. That's what politicians do. Offering their support is not corruption - their support is theirs to give to whomever they choose, and there is no law, rule or custom saying they can't.

And I would say that you are rather obviously wrong.

Here's where I disagree with you, funding for your local NHS, fixing your roads etc shouldn't be contingent on your MP making deals for the benefit of a political party.

"1. money or any other valuable consideration given or promised with a view to corrupting the behavior of a person, especially in that person's performance as an athlete, public official, etc."

This is what I meant by paying somebody to do something "against the rules" - you're paying them to be corrupt.

Since nothing has been corrupted in the case of the DUP, this definition does not apply.

"2. anything given or serving to persuade or induce"

Now under that definition it is a bribe. But then under that definition your employer bribes you to work for him. You bribe stores to give you goods. The definition is so wide that it covers virtually every form of exchange in existence.

By this definition I'd be willing to accept that May bribed the DUP. And my response is "so what? There's nothing wrong with bribery."

No, they are offering their support in return for political concessions. That's what politicians do. Offering their support is not corruption - their support is theirs to give to whomever they choose, and there is no law, rule or custom saying they can't.

And I would say that you are rather obviously wrong.

No, I don't think I am obviously wrong. I am not arguing that the "bribe" in question is illegal, as I am not using the legal meaning of the term, and I am not disputing that it is rife in politics. I do think that using public funds for political deals like this is unprincipled, however. I think that ruling governments ought to use funds for what they see as the good of the country, not for what is for the good of the government or the ruling party. In this case, they are diverting funds to a particular region to secure support. This is known as "pork barrel politics" elsewhere and I think it is an apt description.

__________________"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

You're perfectly entitled to believe that it shouldn't be, of course. But MPs make deals and win favour for their constituencies all the time, and always have.

But it is still basically a bribe on the governments part. May didn't give out this money because she was persuaded there was a sound case to reallocate it to NI, but simply to buy the votes of the DUP. Likewise with the NI abortion decision. Was May suddenly persuaded this was a cause she wanted to support? No she simply scrambled to buy off a group of backbenchers threatening a catastrophic commons defeat. On top of that policies such as easing the public sector pay cap, more money for education, doing something about the burden of Tuition Fees, which were all described as attempts by Labour to 'bribe' the electorate are now being advocated by senior government ministers(Boris Johnson adding his voice to the chorus this morning), do you believe for one minute that May and co have had a Damascene conversion? Or are they trying to buy votes?

As I said earlier, if you want to use a wide enough definition of "bribe" to make this a bribe, then my response is "Okay, it's a bribe. So what? There's nothing wrong with bribery."

Quote:

May didn't give out this money because she was persuaded there was a sound case to reallocate it to NI, but simply to buy the votes of the DUP.

Of course she is buying votes. Is anybody arguing otherwise? That's what politicians do. When you elect a politician, you're giving them influence. They're supposed to exercise that influence in ways that will benefit their constituents. The DUP have won considerable benefit for theirs - those who voted for them should be pleased with the outcome.

__________________Promise of diamonds in eyes of coal
She carries beauty in her soul

"1. money or any other valuable consideration given or promised with a view to corrupting the behavior of a person, especially in that person's performance as an athlete, public official, etc."

This is what I meant by paying somebody to do something "against the rules" - you're paying them to be corrupt.

Since nothing has been corrupted in the case of the DUP, this definition does not apply.

"2. anything given or serving to persuade or induce"

Now under that definition it is a bribe. But then under that definition your employer bribes you to work for him. You bribe stores to give you goods. The definition is so wide that it covers virtually every form of exchange in existence.

By this definition I'd be willing to accept that May bribed the DUP. And my response is "so what? There's nothing wrong with bribery."

No, they are offering their support in return for political concessions. That's what politicians do. Offering their support is not corruption - their support is theirs to give to whomever they choose, and there is no law, rule or custom saying they can't.

And I would say that you are rather obviously wrong.

Corrupting doesn't have to be illegal. She is paying the DUP to vote contrary to how they otherwise would if they were following their principles and what their voters voted for.

Here's where I disagree with you, funding for your local NHS, fixing your roads etc shouldn't be contingent on your MP making deals for the benefit of a political party.

Of course they should. Resources aren't infinite. Prioritization of competing public policy aims is a central function of elected representatives. How else do you propose this should happen, if not through political trade-offs?

As I said earlier, if you want to use a wide enough definition of "bribe" to make this a bribe, then my response is "Okay, it's a bribe. So what? There's nothing wrong with bribery."

Wow the defenders of Mayday really have zero shame.

Quote:

Of course she is buying votes. Is anybody arguing otherwise? That's what politicians do. When you elect a politician, you're giving them influence. They're supposed to exercise that influence in ways that will benefit their constituents. The DUP have won considerable benefit for theirs - those who voted for them should be pleased with the outcome.

Funny that because when Labour proposed allocating money to public services or cutting student debt it was called bribery and vote buying with great indignation, but I guess vote buying is only okay if you were a blue rosette right?

Funny that because when Labour proposed allocating money to public services or cutting student debt it was called bribery and vote buying with great indignation, but I guess vote buying is only okay if you were a blue rosette right?

Rather like alleged cosying up to terrorists is much much worse than actually cosying up to terrorists

Funny that because when Labour proposed allocating money to public services or cutting student debt it was called bribery and vote buying with great indignation, but I guess vote buying is only okay if you were a blue rosette right?

Was it called bribery and vote buying with great indignation by me? No? Then I see no relevance.

__________________Promise of diamonds in eyes of coal
She carries beauty in her soul

So every single politician doesn't vote their principles? Every single party just votes what they get paid for?

I was thinking more systems and administrations than individuals. Though I'd imagine most individual politicians have traded their votes for advantages for their constituents. I'd certainly be annoyed if mine didn't.

Quote:

The lengths of nonsense some people go to in defending this garbage is remarkable.

And the lengths some people go to in trying to condemn business as usual as if it's some terrible crime are even more remarkable. But anything that spins the tories in a bad light, I guess, no matter how great a reach it is.

__________________Promise of diamonds in eyes of coal
She carries beauty in her soul

Just FTR, the answer to the question posed in the OP is: June 2022* (I'd meant to post this within literally a few days of the OP, once it was clear that a sensible/workable deal with the DUP was imminent, but life intervened....).

May will not get brought down from within her own party. The spectre of the Major years still looms large - even to Conservative MPs who were still in primary school at that time - and the chaos wrought within the Labour party by the challenges to Corbyn also serves as a vivid lesson of the self-destructive tendencies of such actions.

The additional issue at play is that if (say) there was a leadership challenge, and if (as is far from unlikely in the current climate), such a challenge were to result in the withdrawal by the DUP from its confidence & supply deal (this would certainly count as a material change in circumstances), there are at least 50-70 Conservative MPs - some of them fairly big party beasts and/or significant members of the government - who would stand a very real risk of losing their seats. I don't think May's leadership will be challenged from within (unless she's so monumentally stupid that she almost forces a leadership challenge through her refusal to listen to her government and backbench colleagues - and I think this is hugely unlikely).

And the only other two ways in which May could feasibly be ousted are a) some screwing up of the 5-year confidence & supply deal with the DUP - which, it must be noted, is a written contract and not just a "yeah, OK, we'll lend you our votes" deal, and which therefore requires material breach in order to revoke the deal; or b) sufficient numbers of rebellion events by Conservative MPs in key parliamentary votes (budget, Queen's Speech, anti-terrorist legislation, etc), or in other parliamentary votes that are not covered by the confidence & supply agreement (together with potential lack of voting support DUP MPs who will be under no obligation to vote with the Govt on such matters). Either of those could easily trigger a no-confidence vote, and start the ball rolling on May's departure. However, again, I think that May (especially without the toxic influence/isolationism provided by Hill and Timothy) easily has enough understanding of realpolitik - not to mention the desire for self-preservation - to ensure that neither of these things happens.

We'll see, I suppose. I could well be stunningly wrong. It could all very well go Kaput for May even before the Autumn conference season. But if I were placing money on this issue, I'd put (almost) all of it on May lasting out til 2022**

* Unless either a) May decides for some reason to step down voluntarily before that time, or b) more than 8 sitting Conservative MPs die within that time period, and more than 5 of those resultant by-elections are won by non-Conservative candidates.

** If May DOES survive as PM until 2022, I also cannot see Corbyn surviving as Labour Leader until then. There are simply too many MASSIVE schisms and tensions within the PLP. My own prediction is that by 2022, Labour will be led either by Ed Balls*** (obv via a by-election re-entry into parliament first......), Chuka Umunna, Steven Kinnock, or a current backbencher who's not even on the top-table radar yet.

*** I also (very) strongly suspect that Ed Balls had been carefully constructing a strategy which entailed Labour losing big in the 2020 election (or, unexpectedly, in the early 2017 election....), and of stepping into the inevitable vacuum and recriminatory internecine atmosphere post-Corbyn as the dynamic, uniting leader with huge public recognition and appeal (that "Strictly Come Dancing" appearance was not just done as a throwaway piece of inconsequential fun for Balls, I assure everyone - it was all part of the strategy). I therefore suspect that Ed Balls was a very, very unhappy person indeed on 9th June 2017.

There are two definitions of bribery. What you're trying to do is invoke the scary bad one when in fact that unscary okay one is at work. It's weak and unconvincing stuff, no different from the creationists who proclaim that "Evolution is just a theory" because they don't really grasp the nuanced meanings of the word "theory".

Well, tough. It's done, and there's nothing you can do about it other than feel some impotent outrage. Such is politics.

Quote:

The relevance is that you only seem to be interested in mounting a defence of actual bribery.

But I didn't do the other stuff that has you so upset, so go whine at the people who did.

__________________Promise of diamonds in eyes of coal
She carries beauty in her soul

There are two definitions of bribery. What you're trying to do is invoke the scary bad one when in fact that unscary okay one is at work. It's weak and unconvincing stuff, no different from the creationists who proclaim that "Evolution is just a theory" because they don't really grasp the nuanced meanings of the word "theory".

Nice try, but this is definitely the immoral if not the illegal one. Just a couple of weeks ago the government does this:

Replacing bursaries with loans would free up about £800m a year to create additional nursing roles by 2020 and help more students enter the profession, according to the Department of Health.
However, the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) said the changes were unfair and risky, while the Royal College of Midwives (RCM) argued that the move threatened the future of maternity services in England.

Now May just spent a billion buying the DUP votes, where did that money come from? Either it was available all along in which case cutting the bursaries was a petty act of politics, or they've just taken the money intended to increase the number of nurses and given away to whatever pet projects the DUP want to spend it on. But I guess as that is only immoral rather than illegal your fine with that.

Quote:

Well, tough. It's done, and there's nothing you can do about it other than feel some impotent outrage. Such is politics.

And now you finally drop the pretence of caring about whether this is right or not.

Quote:

But I didn't do the other stuff that has you so upset, so go whine at the people who did.

Oh but you've clearly demonstrated you're in their camp so I will complain on thanks.

Saudi Arabia is the chief foreign promoter of Islamist extremism in the UK, a new report has claimed.
The Henry Jackson Society said there was a "clear and growing link" between Islamist organisations in receipt of overseas funds, hate preachers and Jihadist groups promoting violence.

Of course this is an independent body, they could be biased, surely the government has looked into this?:

Quote:

The Home Office report into the existence and influence of Jihadist organisations, commissioned by former Prime Minister David Cameron in 2015, has reportedly yet to be completed amid questions as to whether it will ever be published.

I was thinking more systems and administrations than individuals. Though I'd imagine most individual politicians have traded their votes for advantages for their constituents. I'd certainly be annoyed if mine didn't.

The problem here is that May and her party have traded their constituents (and everyone else's) money for advantage for themselves and their party. Blatantly and flagrantly. While at the same time insisting there is no money for anything more important.

Quote:

And the lengths some people go to in trying to condemn business as usual as if it's some terrible crime are even more remarkable. But anything that spins the tories in a bad light, I guess, no matter how great a reach it is.

This is far from business as usual. And the Tories would be up in arms about it if someone else was doing it.

The problem here is that May and her party have traded their constituents (and everyone else's) money for advantage for themselves and their party. Blatantly and flagrantly. While at the same time insisting there is no money for anything more important.

This is far from business as usual. And the Tories would be up in arms about it if someone else was doing it.

How do coalitions work if not though this "bribery"? My recollection is off the lib dems claiming their involvement with the Torys extracted policy changes from them. I don't recall people putting monetary values to those policy changes, but they certainly had such a value.

How do coalitions work if not though this "bribery"? My recollection is off the lib dems claiming their involvement with the Torys extracted policy changes from them. I don't recall people putting monetary values to those policy changes, but they certainly had such a value.

What "policy changes that have a value" has May adopted, that have attracted the support of the DUP in, for example, the Commons vote on the Queen's Speech?

The only policy change is that before the deal she didn't have a "policy" of giving DUP constituents an extra billion pounds, and once she obtained the DUP's Commons votes she embraced that "policy". That is not "business as usual"

What "policy changes that have a value" has May adopted, that have attracted the support of the DUP in, for example, the Commons vote on the Queen's Speech?

The only policy change is that before the deal she didn't have a "policy" of giving DUP constituents an extra billion pounds, and once she obtained the DUP's Commons votes she embraced that "policy". That is not "business as usual"

Actually her most noticeable U-turn was on funding for NI women having abortions in England, hardly a move that would have attracted DUP support. Indeed I would point to this as evidence that the DUP agreed to support May for reasons that had nothing to do with political principles.

Pretty much, except AFAIK the putative Labour coalition wouldn't have a majority due to Sinn Fein not turning up and speaker and two deputy speakers being Labour.

Eh? John Bercow is a Tory.

And Sinn Fein not turning up would mean them not counting as part of the calculation at all. The Tories don't have a majority by themselves so a coalition of all the other parties as shuttl proposes would be a majority, would they not?

A hopeless one of course.

Maybe this might make a grand coalition a slightly more sensible option after all.

__________________"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

And Sinn Fein not turning up would mean them not counting as part of the calculation at all. The Tories don't have a majority by themselves so a coalition of all the other parties as shuttl proposes would be a majority, would they not?

A hopeless one of course.

Maybe this might make a grand coalition a slightly more sensible option after all.

By convention, a majority assumes that Sinn Fein will vote against the government so you need 326 seats.

Sinn Fein don't vote so their numbers (7) can be taken off the total number. Then the speaker and three deputies are also removed. That means you need a majority from 639.

323 fits the bill.

It would be an absurd coalition but it would be a majority.

__________________"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

Actually her most noticeable U-turn was on funding for NI women having abortions in England, hardly a move that would have attracted DUP support. Indeed I would point to this as evidence that the DUP agreed to support May for reasons that had nothing to do with political principles.

In the case of the DUP I'm relieved that their principles have been set aside on this occasion, and I hope that's how things stay.

In the case of the DUP I'm relieved that their principles have been set aside on this occasion, and I hope that's how things stay.

I think simply shows that they were willing to disregard their principles to get that £1 Billion pounds. They knew full well if they stormed out of the deal over the abortion issue the May government would collapse and they could kiss the money goodbye.

I think simply shows that they were willing to disregard their principles to get that £1 Billion pounds. They knew full well if they stormed out of the deal over the abortion issue the May government would collapse and they could kiss the money goodbye.

So they murdered innocent babies for a billion pounds! I don't think they'll get the approval of His Holiness. Will that trouble them, I wonder?

So they murdered innocent babies for a billion pounds! I don't think they'll get the approval of His Holiness. Will that trouble them, I wonder?

The DUP is the party of Ian Paisley

This Ian Paisley

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

__________________OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcarehttp://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

Sinn Fein don't vote so their numbers (7) can be taken off the total number. Then the speaker and three deputies are also removed. That means you need a majority from 639.

323 fits the bill.

The deputy speakers don't vote either? And there are by convention always two Labour and two Tory (deputy) speakers? Then it doesn't matter if you count them or not.

Originally Posted by angrysoba

It would be an absurd coalition but it would be a majority.

What do you mean, only six parties. In fact, you could do without the Greens and the single independent (that's a defected UUP member isn't it?)

__________________"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

Bah, that video doesn't even show him unfolding his banner that the Pope is the Antichrist.

__________________"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.